NRA Resorting To Brady Type Cause and Effect Reporting?

I agree, that the convention appeared to be a huge success, and all the reports I saw on it were very positive. I wish I was there, not only for the incredible gun show, but also the great presentations.

Anyways…my gripe:

With that many visitors in town, you might be thinking that there must have been some serious problems — maybe some opportunistic criminals preying on preoccupied tourists making their way around an unfamiliar city. Well, crime was actually lower during NRA’s convention — much lower.

According to the CharlotteObserver.com article, Captain Jeff Estes, commander of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s Central Division, said crime for the week was 45 percent lower than the same week a year ago.

For those who know that NRA members are among the most law-abiding of citizens, and that more guns often equates to less crime, then that figure should come as no surprise at all.

That is directly from the NRA press release.

I am all for the “More guns less crime” movement, but why try to correlate a drop in crime to the fact that the convention was there for 3 days? I really don’t think that had anything to do with it, considering the Charlotte Observer article goes on to say that crime in central Charlotte is down this year as a whole from 2009. I highly doubt the criminals in and around Charlotte were sitting at home saying “Man, I should really be out there robbing and stealing.. but there are so damn many gun owners in town. Too Risky for me!”

Maybe I’m just feeling in a nit picking mood, but this type of cause-effect reporting seems very Brady-esque. I expected more from the NRA.

I’m with you on this one Mike. The fact that crime was down 45% from the same week last year, in and of itself, doesn’t really mean a whole lot. Maybe during that particular week last year crime was up 82% from normal, in which case this week would have been back to normal. Seems irresponsible to attribute the decrease to the convention unless all other factors have been looked at and eliminated.

“Maybe I’m just feeling in a nit picking mood, but this type of cause-effect reporting seems very Brady-esque. I expected more from the NRA.”

1) Agree with your first sentance very Brady-esque.

2) Disagree with expecting more from the NRA, they are (unfortunetly) as you put it Brady-esque. One of the reasons I stopped being a member years ago. I still help support them financially and usually vote the way they recomend but for a number of reasons which are not relevent here I am not and hope not to be a member.

I agree with you Jim – I’m pro-gun rights and love shooting, but… it’s like a set of scales – you have the crazy-Brady’s on one side, and the crazy-NRA’s on the other.

I’d suspect most people are less “in the wings” (right or left) when it comes to gun ownership, but given the absolute choice between “goofballs with guns that will kill us” (NRA from the Brady perspective) and “crazy liberals violating our rights” (Brady from the NRA perspective), sadly, I think many people would prefer to not get shot. They just don’t understand the threat to civil liberty quite as much as the threat to the loss of life – whether that risk is real or simply perceived.

I’m very thankful for Mike for providing this more ‘middle of the road’ place where we can discuss firearms like adults, and show people that not everyone who loves guns are extremists.